Pesticide regulations for agriculture: Chemically flawed regulatory practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two categories of pesticide soil models now exist. Government regulatory agencies use pesticide fate and transport hydrology models, including versions of PRZM.gw. They have good descriptions of pesticide transport by water flow. Their descriptions of chemical mechanisms are unrealistic, having been postulated using the universally accepted but incorrect pesticide soil science. The objective of this work is to report experimental tests of a pesticide soil model in use by regulatory agencies and to suggest possible improvements. Tests with experimentally based data explain why PRZM.gw predictions can be wrong by orders of magnitude. Predictive spreadsheet models are the other category. They are experimentally based, with chemical stoichiometry applied to integral kinetic rate laws for sorption, desorption, intra-particle diffusion, and chemical reactions. They do not account for pesticide transport through soils. Each category of models therefore lacks what the other could provide. They need to be either harmonized or replaced. Some preliminary tests indicate that an experimental mismatch between the categories of models will have to be resolved. Reports of pesticides in the environment and the medical problems that overlap geographically indicate that government regulatory practice needs to account for chemical kinetics and mechanisms. Questions about possible cause and effect links could then be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".